Re: Cycling Helmets Compulsory?

[judith]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:31:32 GMT, _
> wrote:

<snip>

>
>There is no additional risk from not wearing a cycle helmet.

Are you sure - I would have at least thought they gave an extra level
of protection (which is not there if you don't wear it) - are you
saying this is not the case?

[Clive George]

"judith" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:31:32 GMT, _
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>>There is no additional risk from not wearing a cycle helmet.
>
> Are you sure - I would have at least thought they gave an extra level
> of protection (which is not there if you don't wear it) - are you
> saying this is not the case?

No spoon-feeding for you on this one. Go and read the archives of this
group. Any pertinent questions you may come up with will have been answered
already.

[Dave]

"judith" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:31:32 GMT, _
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>>There is no additional risk from not wearing a cycle helmet.
>
> Are you sure - I would have at least thought they gave an extra level
> of protection (which is not there if you don't wear it) - are you
> saying this is not the case?

You are probably confusing the issue.

The statement said "no additional risk"

That means there is no more risk in not wearing one.

If you have an accident that involves a head injury it if often argued that
a helmet may have helped prevent further damage or may have made things
worse.

So back to the statement you are no more at risk of having an accident by
not wearing a helmet. A helmet does not make you less vunerable to having an
accident.

Dave

[Roger Thorpe[_4_]]

judith wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:31:32 GMT, _
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>There is no additional risk from not wearing a cycle helmet.
>
>
> Are you sure - I would have at least thought they gave an extra level
> of protection (which is not there if you don't wear it) - are you
> saying this is not the case?
Oh no. the thing we all dreaded. Judith enters a helmet thread.

If you are really interested "judith" look at an archive of posts on
uk.rec.cycling. You'll find a diversity of sometimes strongly held opinion.
My view of it is that both sides use questionable statistics, but:

Cycle helmets can increase the probability of some injuries through
increasing the radius of the head and thus increasing the likelihood of
a strike and the longer lever arm to cause higher rotational
acceleration, and thus brain injury.
There may be some risk compensation (people are less careful when they
wear a hat).
Compulsory hat wearing will deter people from taking up cycling.

I think that it's fair to say that we've agreed to disagree here in an
amicable sort of way.

Many of us do wear hats. I'm one of them.

Roger Thorpe

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:29:49 +0100, judith >
said in >:

>Are you sure - I would have at least thought they gave an extra level
>of protection (which is not there if you don't wear it) - are you
>saying this is not the case?

http://www.cyclehelmets.org is a good place to start. But I doubt
it will help, your facility for self-justification is one of the
best examples of cognitive dissonance theory I've seen.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[[email protected]]

On 18 Jul, 12:38, "Dave" > wrote:
> "judith" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:31:32 GMT, _
> > > wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >>There is no additional risk from not wearing a cycle helmet.
>
> > Are you sure - I would have at least thought they gave an extra level
> > of protection (which is not there if you don't wear it) - are you
> > saying this is not the case?
>
> You are probably confusing the issue.
>
> The statement said "no additional risk"
>
> That means there is no more risk in not wearing one.
>
> If you have an accident that involves a head injury it if often argued that
> a helmet may have helped prevent further damage or may have made things
> worse.
>
> So back to the statement you are no more at risk of having an accident by
> not wearing a helmet. A helmet does not make you less vunerable to having an
> accident.
>
> Dave

Your logic circuit needs updating that is not what the statement
says...according to your logic not wearing a helmet or wearing a
helmet have no effect on the probability of having an accident. This
is true but not what the statement is saying. The statement is saying
that in a collision there is no more risk in wearing a helmet than not
wearing one...the extrapolated logic of this poorly constructed
statement is thus that there is no extra benefit to be had from
wearing a helmet - as there is no extra risk involved in not wearing
one. The proposition of the statement is that there will be or has
been a collision in which the 'benefit' may be evaluated. It says
nothing about avoiding the collision and relies for it's sense on the
fact of a collision to determine it's logic.

Sniper8052

[Dave]

> wrote in message
...
> On 18 Jul, 12:38, "Dave" > wrote:
>> "judith" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:31:32 GMT, _
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > <snip>
>>
>> >>There is no additional risk from not wearing a cycle helmet.
>>
>> > Are you sure - I would have at least thought they gave an extra level
>> > of protection (which is not there if you don't wear it) - are you
>> > saying this is not the case?
>>
>> You are probably confusing the issue.
>>
>> The statement said "no additional risk"
>>
>> That means there is no more risk in not wearing one.
>>
>> If you have an accident that involves a head injury it if often argued
>> that
>> a helmet may have helped prevent further damage or may have made things
>> worse.
>>
>> So back to the statement you are no more at risk of having an accident by
>> not wearing a helmet. A helmet does not make you less vunerable to having
>> an
>> accident.
>>
>> Dave
>
> Your logic circuit needs updating that is not what the statement
> says...according to your logic not wearing a helmet or wearing a
> helmet have no effect on the probability of having an accident. This
> is true but not what the statement is saying. The statement is saying
> that in a collision there is no more risk in wearing a helmet than not
> wearing one...the extrapolated logic of this poorly constructed
> statement is thus that there is no extra benefit to be had from
> wearing a helmet - as there is no extra risk involved in not wearing
> one. The proposition of the statement is that there will be or has
> been a collision in which the 'benefit' may be evaluated. It says
> nothing about avoiding the collision and relies for it's sense on the
> fact of a collision to determine it's logic.
>
> Sniper8052

I cannot see the full quote all I got was ">There is no additional risk from
not wearing a cycle helmet."

So it was in no other context as I saw it.

Dave

[Mark McNeill[_2_]]

Response to
> according to your logic not wearing a helmet or wearing a
> helmet have no effect on the probability of having an accident. This
> is true but not what the statement is saying.


For what it's worth, there is some evidence that it's not true; that
wearing a cycle helmet increases the possibility of an accident.
Needless to say in the cycle helmet debate, that evidence is not utterly
conclusive. ;-)


--
Mark, UK
"It is better to have loafed and lost, than never to have loafed at
all."

[Roger Merriman]

Roger Thorpe > wrote:

> judith wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:31:32 GMT, _
> > > wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>There is no additional risk from not wearing a cycle helmet.
> >
> >
> > Are you sure - I would have at least thought they gave an extra level
> > of protection (which is not there if you don't wear it) - are you
> > saying this is not the case?
> Oh no. the thing we all dreaded. Judith enters a helmet thread.
>
> If you are really interested "judith" look at an archive of posts on
> uk.rec.cycling. You'll find a diversity of sometimes strongly held opinion.
> My view of it is that both sides use questionable statistics, but:

i'd say it boils down to they don't do a lot, do i think they greatly
decrease risk? no. but also i'm not greatly impressed that they have any
great risk either. i have hard time seeing them doing much of any thing.
>
> Cycle helmets can increase the probability of some injuries through
> increasing the radius of the head and thus increasing the likelihood of
> a strike and the longer lever arm to cause higher rotational
> acceleration, and thus brain injury.
> There may be some risk compensation (people are less careful when they
> wear a hat).
> Compulsory hat wearing will deter people from taking up cycling.
>
> I think that it's fair to say that we've agreed to disagree here in an
> amicable sort of way.
>
> Many of us do wear hats. I'm one of them.

too hot for me, which is my main problem with them.
>
> Roger Thorpe

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[JNugent[_4_]]

Dave wrote:
> "judith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:31:32 GMT, _
>> > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> There is no additional risk from not wearing a cycle helmet.
>> Are you sure - I would have at least thought they gave an extra level
>> of protection (which is not there if you don't wear it) - are you
>> saying this is not the case?
>
> You are probably confusing the issue.
>
> The statement said "no additional risk"
>
> That means there is no more risk in not wearing one.

It means something slightly different from that.

A better way of saying what you mean might be that there is no more
overall risk (I make no judgment as to whether that would be an accurate
statement, but I think it's closer to what you meant).

> If you have an accident that involves a head injury it if often argued that
> a helmet may have helped prevent further damage or may have made things
> worse.

> So back to the statement you are no more at risk of having an accident by
> not wearing a helmet. A helmet does not make you less vunerable to having an
> accident.

Neither does a m/c helmet or a seat belt, nor yet an aircraft safety belt.

[JNugent[_4_]]

wrote:
> On 18 Jul, 12:38, "Dave" > wrote:
>> "judith" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:31:32 GMT, _
>>> > wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> There is no additional risk from not wearing a cycle helmet.
>>> Are you sure - I would have at least thought they gave an extra level
>>> of protection (which is not there if you don't wear it) - are you
>>> saying this is not the case?
>> You are probably confusing the issue.
>>
>> The statement said "no additional risk"
>>
>> That means there is no more risk in not wearing one.
>>
>> If you have an accident that involves a head injury it if often argued that
>> a helmet may have helped prevent further damage or may have made things
>> worse.
>>
>> So back to the statement you are no more at risk of having an accident by
>> not wearing a helmet. A helmet does not make you less vunerable to having an
>> accident.
>>
>> Dave
>
> Your logic circuit needs updating that is not what the statement
> says...according to your logic not wearing a helmet or wearing a
> helmet have no effect on the probability of having an accident. This
> is true but not what the statement is saying. The statement is saying
> that in a collision there is no more risk in wearing a helmet than not
> wearing one...the extrapolated logic of this poorly constructed
> statement is thus that there is no extra benefit to be had from
> wearing a helmet - as there is no extra risk involved in not wearing
> one. The proposition of the statement is that there will be or has
> been a collision in which the 'benefit' may be evaluated. It says
> nothing about avoiding the collision and relies for it's sense on the
> fact of a collision to determine it's logic.
>
> Sniper8052

Well put.

But probably fated to be ignored or twisted out of shaape.

[judith]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:38:13 +0100, "Clive George"
> wrote:

>"judith" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:31:32 GMT, _
>> > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>>There is no additional risk from not wearing a cycle helmet.
>>
>> Are you sure - I would have at least thought they gave an extra level
>> of protection (which is not there if you don't wear it) - are you
>> saying this is not the case?
>
>No spoon-feeding for you on this one. Go and read the archives of this
>group. Any pertinent questions you may come up with will have been answered
>already.
>

I am sorry - I was hoping the PP was going to back up his statement.

I didn't expect you to jump in and say that you couldn't answer the
question on his behalf.

[judith]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:38:14 +0100, "Dave"
> wrote:

>
>"judith" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:31:32 GMT, _
>> > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>>There is no additional risk from not wearing a cycle helmet.
>>
>> Are you sure - I would have at least thought they gave an extra level
>> of protection (which is not there if you don't wear it) - are you
>> saying this is not the case?
>
>You are probably confusing the issue.
>
>The statement said "no additional risk"
>
>That means there is no more risk in not wearing one.
>
>If you have an accident that involves a head injury it if often argued that
>a helmet may have helped prevent further damage or may have made things
>worse.
>
>So back to the statement you are no more at risk of having an accident by
>not wearing a helmet. A helmet does not make you less vunerable to having an
>accident.
>
>Dave
>

The statement which was made was "There is no additional risk from not
wearing a cycle helmet."

not

"There is no additional risk *of having an accident* by not wearing a
cycle helmet"

I fail to see why you jumped to that conclusion.

[judith]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:31:33 +0100, "Dave"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> On 18 Jul, 12:38, "Dave" > wrote:
>>> "judith" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:31:32 GMT, _
>>> > > wrote:
>>>
>>> > <snip>
>>>
>>> >>There is no additional risk from not wearing a cycle helmet.
>>>
>>> > Are you sure - I would have at least thought they gave an extra level
>>> > of protection (which is not there if you don't wear it) - are you
>>> > saying this is not the case?
>>>
>>> You are probably confusing the issue.
>>>
>>> The statement said "no additional risk"
>>>
>>> That means there is no more risk in not wearing one.
>>>
>>> If you have an accident that involves a head injury it if often argued
>>> that
>>> a helmet may have helped prevent further damage or may have made things
>>> worse.
>>>
>>> So back to the statement you are no more at risk of having an accident by
>>> not wearing a helmet. A helmet does not make you less vunerable to having
>>> an
>>> accident.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>
>> Your logic circuit needs updating that is not what the statement
>> says...according to your logic not wearing a helmet or wearing a
>> helmet have no effect on the probability of having an accident. This
>> is true but not what the statement is saying. The statement is saying
>> that in a collision there is no more risk in wearing a helmet than not
>> wearing one...the extrapolated logic of this poorly constructed
>> statement is thus that there is no extra benefit to be had from
>> wearing a helmet - as there is no extra risk involved in not wearing
>> one. The proposition of the statement is that there will be or has
>> been a collision in which the 'benefit' may be evaluated. It says
>> nothing about avoiding the collision and relies for it's sense on the
>> fact of a collision to determine it's logic.
>>
>> Sniper8052
>
>I cannot see the full quote all I got was ">There is no additional risk from
>not wearing a cycle helmet."
>
>So it was in no other context as I saw it.
>
>Dave
>
>


So why assume that the words of "having an accident" were implied?

[judith]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:50:14 +0100, Mark McNeill
> wrote:

>Response to
>> according to your logic not wearing a helmet or wearing a
>> helmet have no effect on the probability of having an accident. This
>> is true but not what the statement is saying.
>
>
>For what it's worth, there is some evidence that it's not true; that
>wearing a cycle helmet increases the possibility of an accident.
>Needless to say in the cycle helmet debate, that evidence is not utterly
>conclusive. ;-)


Evidence where?

[Marc[_2_]]

judith wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:50:14 +0100, Mark McNeill
> > wrote:
>
>> Response to
>>> according to your logic not wearing a helmet or wearing a
>>> helmet have no effect on the probability of having an accident. This
>>> is true but not what the statement is saying.
>>
>> For what it's worth, there is some evidence that it's not true; that
>> wearing a cycle helmet increases the possibility of an accident.
>> Needless to say in the cycle helmet debate, that evidence is not utterly
>> conclusive. ;-)
>
>
> Evidence where?
>
Get off your arse and go and find it. The babyfood shop is shut.

[Clive George]

"judith" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:38:13 +0100, "Clive George"
> > wrote:
>
>>"judith" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:31:32 GMT, _
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>There is no additional risk from not wearing a cycle helmet.
>>>
>>> Are you sure - I would have at least thought they gave an extra level
>>> of protection (which is not there if you don't wear it) - are you
>>> saying this is not the case?
>>
>>No spoon-feeding for you on this one. Go and read the archives of this
>>group. Any pertinent questions you may come up with will have been
>>answered
>>already.
>>
>
> I am sorry - I was hoping the PP was going to back up his statement.
>
> I didn't expect you to jump in and say that you couldn't answer the
> question on his behalf.

Fortunately I didn't say that.

I see elsewhere in this thread you're still asking questions which would be
answered if you studied the archives of this group. It's time for you to
grow up and do some study for yourself - well, it would be if you were
actually interested in learning anything.

[judith]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:52:28 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:29:49 +0100, judith >
>said in >:
>
>>Are you sure - I would have at least thought they gave an extra level
>>of protection (which is not there if you don't wear it) - are you
>>saying this is not the case?
>
>http://www.cyclehelmets.org is a good place to start. But I doubt
>it will help, your facility for self-justification is one of the
>best examples of cognitive dissonance theory I've seen.
>
>Guy


Thanks for your contribution and also you puerile comments -
appreciated.

[_[_2_]]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:18:55 +0100, Roger Merriman wrote:

> Roger Thorpe > wrote:
>
>> judith wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:31:32 GMT, _
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>There is no additional risk from not wearing a cycle helmet.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you sure - I would have at least thought they gave an extra level
>>> of protection (which is not there if you don't wear it) - are you
>>> saying this is not the case?
>> Oh no. the thing we all dreaded. Judith enters a helmet thread.
>>
>> If you are really interested "judith" look at an archive of posts on
>> uk.rec.cycling. You'll find a diversity of sometimes strongly held opinion.
>> My view of it is that both sides use questionable statistics, but:
>
> i'd say it boils down to they don't do a lot, do i think they greatly
> decrease risk? no. but also i'm not greatly impressed that they have any
> great risk either. i have hard time seeing them doing much of any thing.
>>

The main - and worst - thing they do is discourage cycling.

[judith]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:40:06 +0100, Marc
> wrote:

>judith wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:50:14 +0100, Mark McNeill
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Response to
>>>> according to your logic not wearing a helmet or wearing a
>>>> helmet have no effect on the probability of having an accident. This
>>>> is true but not what the statement is saying.
>>>
>>> For what it's worth, there is some evidence that it's not true; that
>>> wearing a cycle helmet increases the possibility of an accident.
>>> Needless to say in the cycle helmet debate, that evidence is not utterly
>>> conclusive. ;-)
>>
>>
>> Evidence where?
>>
>Get off your arse and go and find it. The babyfood shop is shut.


Now now little chap - keep your shirt on - don't throw your toys out
of your pram - perhaps mummy will buy you some tomorrow.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:02:51 +0100, judith >
said in >:

>>http://www.cyclehelmets.org is a good place to start. But I doubt
>>it will help, your facility for self-justification is one of the
>>best examples of cognitive dissonance theory I've seen.

>Thanks for your contribution and also you puerile comments -
>appreciated.

And another data point, thank you. You really should read up on
cognitive dissonance, by the way. Not that being aware of it will
necessarily enable you to stop it.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[PK[_2_]]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...

> http://www.cyclehelmets.org is a good place to start. But I doubt
> it will help, your facility for self-justification is one of the
> best examples of cognitive dissonance theory I've seen.


actually, I have often thought that the stance by some anti helmet zealots
is a far better example: the choose to not wear a helmet because they are
hot, sweaty and uncomfortable and then go to great lengths to "prove" that
they do not work anyway.

pk

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:10:19 +0100, "PK" > said
in >:

>actually, I have often thought that the stance by some anti helmet zealots
>is a far better example: the choose to not wear a helmet because they are
>hot, sweaty and uncomfortable and then go to great lengths to "prove" that
>they do not work anyway.

I wouldn't know, never having come across an anti helmet zealot.
Helmet zealots, yes, but I've never met anyone who wanted to change
the law to force everyone who disagrees to adopt their choice
anyway.

Perhaps you could let us know who these supposed anti helmet zealots
are?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[_[_2_]]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:10:19 +0100, PK wrote:

> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> http://www.cyclehelmets.org is a good place to start. But I doubt
>> it will help, your facility for self-justification is one of the
>> best examples of cognitive dissonance theory I've seen.
>
>
> actually, I have often thought that the stance by some anti helmet zealots
> is a far better example: the choose to not wear a helmet because they are
> hot, sweaty and uncomfortable and then go to great lengths to "prove" that
> they do not work anyway.
>

Well, how & sweaty & uncomfortable is often true enough - but not the bit
about going to great lengths. It's no trouble to point people to
www.cyclehelmets.org, which has a plethora of results and reports done by
others - scientists and statisticians, government reports and so on,
written by experts in their fields.

And besides, the actual danger of a head injury while cycling is
vanishingly small. In all, the summary is that cycle helmets are a
solution that does not work to a problem that does not exist.

Your characterization of people who actually have read the data as
"zealots" betrays your agenda...

[Nick[_4_]]

PK wrote:
>
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> http://www.cyclehelmets.org is a good place to start. But I doubt
>> it will help, your facility for self-justification is one of the
>> best examples of cognitive dissonance theory I've seen.
>
>
> actually, I have often thought that the stance by some anti helmet
> zealots is a far better example: the choose to not wear a helmet because
> they are hot, sweaty and uncomfortable and then go to great lengths to
> "prove" that they do not work anyway.
>

There is a big difference between an idiot deciding what they must do
for their own safety and an idiot deciding what I must do for my own safety.

The fact that helmets are unpleasant to wear seems to be a good reason
for not wearing one. Most sensible people would start from that obvious
fact and then consider if there was a safety advantage that outweighed
the disadvantage. I assume this is what you mean by going to great
lengths to "prove" they don't work anyway?

[_[_2_]]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:42:57 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:10:19 +0100, "PK" > said
> in >:
>
>>actually, I have often thought that the stance by some anti helmet zealots
>>is a far better example: the choose to not wear a helmet because they are
>>hot, sweaty and uncomfortable and then go to great lengths to "prove" that
>>they do not work anyway.
>
> I wouldn't know, never having come across an anti helmet zealot.
> Helmet zealots, yes, but I've never met anyone who wanted to change
> the law to force everyone who disagrees to adopt their choice
> anyway.
>

Um, perhaps you need to make sure of what you are saying -
pro-helmet-compulsion types do *exactly* that. I agree, I've never heard
of anyone who wishes to make it illegal to wear one, just many who wish to
make it illegal NOT to wear one.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:51:21 GMT, _
> said in
>:

>Um, perhaps you need to make sure of what you are saying -
>pro-helmet-compulsion types do *exactly* that. I agree, I've never heard
>of anyone who wishes to make it illegal to wear one, just many who wish to
>make it illegal NOT to wear one.

Fair point, I did indeed mean in that sense.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:50:52 +0100, Nick >
said in >:

>The fact that helmets are unpleasant to wear seems to be a good reason
>for not wearing one. Most sensible people would start from that obvious
>fact and then consider if there was a safety advantage that outweighed
>the disadvantage. I assume this is what you mean by going to great
>lengths to "prove" they don't work anyway?

It's not necessary to go to any great lengths to prove that they
don't work, the figures from Aus and New Zealand do that very
handily.

And of course it's not supposed to be the job of sceptics to prove
that a proposed intervention does not work. If a scientist proposes
an intervention and predicts an effect from it, and that
intervention is tried and found not to yield any measurable effect
at all, then it is the scientist, not the sceptics, who has some
explaining to do. In this case the explaining seems to be
restricted to repeating the same flawed research and asserting that
because the same flawed research always provides the same answer
then it must be reality which is at fault, i.e. "we think people are
wearing them wrongly".

If people were less emotionally vested in proving they were right in
the face of evidence and conflicting social needs (you cannot, after
all, promote cycling as a safe and healthy activity and
simultaneously as something so dangerous as to require special
protection), I suspect they'd have given up long ago. I guess the
fact that messrs. Bell Sports can sell a few dollars' worth of
styrofoam for fifty dollars or more does give them an incentive to
prop the argument up, but actually a lot of the most dedicated
proponents are simply people who flatly refuse to accept any
conflicting evidence, few of them are in the pay of the
manufacturers. This is, of course, normal human behaviour.

What's noticeable is that the people pk and others accuse of being
"anti helmet zealots" are very frequently former believers. Roger
Geffen and John Franklin, for example, both used to be accept the
pro-helmet arguments at face value, until they were prompted to
start looking more deeply. You can't call Brian Walker an anti
helmet zealot, but he has written articles critical of helmet
promotion.

One of the problems with zealots is that they can't tell an agnostic
from an atheist. The supposed "anti helmet zealots" that have been
identified to me by others pushing that particular meme have all
been agnostics not atheists, and most of them have changed their
minds over time as a result of study of the evidence. I don't think
I've ever met anyone who has moved from scepticism to True Belief on
the helmet issue as a result of studying the evidence.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[PK[_2_]]

"_" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:10:19 +0100, PK wrote:
>
>>
>> actually, I have often thought that the stance by some anti helmet
>> zealots


>
> Your characterization of people who actually have read the data as
> "zealots" betrays your agenda...

Try reading the whole sentence, you clearly missed an important word:

SOME

I have no "agenda" perhaps your misreading and accusation suggests that you
do?

pk

[Alan Braggins]

In article >, PK wrote:
>"_" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:10:19 +0100, PK wrote:
>>>
>>> actually, I have often thought that the stance by some anti helmet
>>> zealots
>>
>> Your characterization of people who actually have read the data as
>> "zealots" betrays your agenda...
>
>Try reading the whole sentence, you clearly missed an important word:
>SOME

Name one.

>I have no "agenda"

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:17:46 +0100, "PK" > said
in >:

>> Your characterization of people who actually have read the data as
>> "zealots" betrays your agenda...

>Try reading the whole sentence, you clearly missed an important word:

I did, and I guess _ did as well. For your response to make any
sense you would need to identify a meaningful number of people who
could be described as anti helmet zealots. You appear not to have
done so yet.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[JNugent[_4_]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> "PK" > said:

>> actually, I have often thought that the stance by some anti helmet zealots
>> is a far better example: the choose to not wear a helmet because they are
>> hot, sweaty and uncomfortable and then go to great lengths to "prove" that
>> they do not work anyway.

> I wouldn't know, never having come across an anti helmet zealot.
> Helmet zealots, yes, but I've never met anyone who wanted to change
> the law to force everyone who disagrees to adopt their choice
> anyway.
> Perhaps you could let us know who these supposed anti helmet zealots
> are?
> Guy

Check back through this very NG.

You will be able to find posts wherein it has been argued that simply
wearing a helmet without uttering a word for compulsion is part of the
movement towards compulsion - because "the government" (WTMM) has
apparently announced that compuslion will be considered when a majority
of cyclists use helmets.

You must have seen that line of argument. I was reminded by it of Soviet
Union official pressure for "socialist" art (where art for art's sake
was regarded as anti-Soviet).

[Trevor A Panther[_2_]]

"Nick" > wrote in message
...
> PK wrote:
>>
>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> http://www.cyclehelmets.org is a good place to start. But I doubt
>>> it will help, your facility for self-justification is one of the
>>> best examples of cognitive dissonance theory I've seen.
>>
>>
>> actually, I have often thought that the stance by some anti helmet zealots
>> is a far better example: the choose to not wear a helmet because they are
>> hot, sweaty and uncomfortable and then go to great lengths to "prove" that
>> they do not work anyway.
>>
>
> There is a big difference between an idiot deciding what they must do for
> their own safety and an idiot deciding what I must do for my own safety.
>
> The fact that helmets are unpleasant to wear seems to be a good reason for
> not wearing one. Most sensible people would start from that obvious fact and
> then consider if there was a safety advantage that outweighed the
> disadvantage. I assume this is what you mean by going to great lengths to
> "prove" they don't work anyway?
>
I wear a helmet. I don't find it uncomfortable and it carries 2 lights -- 1
forward spot light which looks directly at approaching cars at night and a
rear multi random flashing LED light. It also carries my camera! It also
carries a down "flippable" smoked visor which actually is an added asset in
that it reduces the fly intake to my open mouth ( yes it does -- try it out an
see --sadly no longer available). I am certainly not a speed freak and trundle
along( under full trailer camping mode) at about 15 kph so I don't break into
a sweat. And in the winter/cool/wet season I put a waterproof cover over it
which keeps my ancient head warm but still ventilated. I certainly hate
wearing any sort of cap, beret, baseball thingy.

And does it protect me from head injuries? It may do or it may not, but all
the other facilities it supports makes it an asset to me

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

[judith]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:00:14 GMT, "Trevor A Panther"
> wrote:

<snip>

>I wear a helmet. I don't find it uncomfortable and it carries 2 lights -- 1
>forward spot light which looks directly at approaching cars at night and a
>rear multi random flashing LED light. It also carries my camera! It also
>carries a down "flippable" smoked visor which actually is an added asset in
>that it reduces the fly intake to my open mouth ( yes it does -- try it out an
>see --sadly no longer available). I am certainly not a speed freak and trundle
>along( under full trailer camping mode) at about 15 kph so I don't break into
>a sweat. And in the winter/cool/wet season I put a waterproof cover over it
>which keeps my ancient head warm but still ventilated. I certainly hate
>wearing any sort of cap, beret, baseball thingy.
>
>And does it protect me from head injuries? It may do or it may not, but all
>the other facilities it supports makes it an asset to me


One of the most sensible posts I have read in uk.rec.cycling.

Thanks

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:04:14 +0100, judith >
said in >:

>One of the most sensible posts I have read in uk.rec.cycling.

In that it confirms your prejudices, I take it, since the posts
pointing out the errors in the research are enormously sensible,
especially if you consider risk compensation theory and the likely
effect of the habitual exaggeration of the protective capabilities
of helmets.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Nick[_4_]]

judith wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:00:14 GMT, "Trevor A Panther"
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I wear a helmet. I don't find it uncomfortable and it carries 2 lights -- 1
>> forward spot light which looks directly at approaching cars at night and a
>> rear multi random flashing LED light. It also carries my camera! It also
>> carries a down "flippable" smoked visor which actually is an added asset in
>> that it reduces the fly intake to my open mouth ( yes it does -- try it out an
>> see --sadly no longer available). I am certainly not a speed freak and trundle
>> along( under full trailer camping mode) at about 15 kph so I don't break into
>> a sweat. And in the winter/cool/wet season I put a waterproof cover over it
>> which keeps my ancient head warm but still ventilated. I certainly hate
>> wearing any sort of cap, beret, baseball thingy.
>>
>> And does it protect me from head injuries? It may do or it may not, but all
>> the other facilities it supports makes it an asset to me
>
>
> One of the most sensible posts I have read in uk.rec.cycling.
>

You think we should all get helmets so that we can mount cameras on them?

[Nick[_4_]]

Trevor A Panther wrote:
>
>
>
> "Nick" > wrote in message
> ...
>> PK wrote:
>>>
>>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> http://www.cyclehelmets.org is a good place to start. But I doubt
>>>> it will help, your facility for self-justification is one of the
>>>> best examples of cognitive dissonance theory I've seen.
>>>
>>>
>>> actually, I have often thought that the stance by some anti helmet
>>> zealots is a far better example: the choose to not wear a helmet
>>> because they are hot, sweaty and uncomfortable and then go to great
>>> lengths to "prove" that they do not work anyway.
>>>
>>
>> There is a big difference between an idiot deciding what they must do
>> for their own safety and an idiot deciding what I must do for my own
>> safety.
>>
>> The fact that helmets are unpleasant to wear seems to be a good reason
>> for not wearing one. Most sensible people would start from that
>> obvious fact and then consider if there was a safety advantage that
>> outweighed the disadvantage. I assume this is what you mean by going
>> to great lengths to "prove" they don't work anyway?
>>
> I wear a helmet. I don't find it uncomfortable and it carries 2 lights
> -- 1 forward spot light which looks directly at approaching cars at
> night and a rear multi random flashing LED light. It also carries my
> camera! It also carries a down "flippable" smoked visor which actually
> is an added asset in that it reduces the fly intake to my open mouth (
> yes it does -- try it out an see --sadly no longer available). I am
> certainly not a speed freak and trundle along( under full trailer
> camping mode) at about 15 kph so I don't break into a sweat. And in the
> winter/cool/wet season I put a waterproof cover over it which keeps my
> ancient head warm but still ventilated. I certainly hate wearing any
> sort of cap, beret, baseball thingy.
>
> And does it protect me from head injuries? It may do or it may not, but
> all the other facilities it supports makes it an asset to me
>

I do sweat, even in winter I only wear a hat for the first half of my
journey. I do find helmets uncomfortable. I don't use a camera. I admit
I would like head mounted lights but not enough to wear a helmet.

If you want to wear a helmet or a cap or a Man United T-shirt it is fine
with me. What I don't like is people telling me what I *must* wear.

[judith]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:06:35 +0100, Nick >
wrote:

>Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> "Nick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> PK wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cyclehelmets.org is a good place to start. But I doubt
>>>>> it will help, your facility for self-justification is one of the
>>>>> best examples of cognitive dissonance theory I've seen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> actually, I have often thought that the stance by some anti helmet
>>>> zealots is a far better example: the choose to not wear a helmet
>>>> because they are hot, sweaty and uncomfortable and then go to great
>>>> lengths to "prove" that they do not work anyway.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is a big difference between an idiot deciding what they must do
>>> for their own safety and an idiot deciding what I must do for my own
>>> safety.
>>>
>>> The fact that helmets are unpleasant to wear seems to be a good reason
>>> for not wearing one. Most sensible people would start from that
>>> obvious fact and then consider if there was a safety advantage that
>>> outweighed the disadvantage. I assume this is what you mean by going
>>> to great lengths to "prove" they don't work anyway?
>>>
>> I wear a helmet. I don't find it uncomfortable and it carries 2 lights
>> -- 1 forward spot light which looks directly at approaching cars at
>> night and a rear multi random flashing LED light. It also carries my
>> camera! It also carries a down "flippable" smoked visor which actually
>> is an added asset in that it reduces the fly intake to my open mouth (
>> yes it does -- try it out an see --sadly no longer available). I am
>> certainly not a speed freak and trundle along( under full trailer
>> camping mode) at about 15 kph so I don't break into a sweat. And in the
>> winter/cool/wet season I put a waterproof cover over it which keeps my
>> ancient head warm but still ventilated. I certainly hate wearing any
>> sort of cap, beret, baseball thingy.
>>
>> And does it protect me from head injuries? It may do or it may not, but
>> all the other facilities it supports makes it an asset to me
>>
>
>I do sweat, even in winter I only wear a hat for the first half of my
>journey. I do find helmets uncomfortable. I don't use a camera. I admit
>I would like head mounted lights but not enough to wear a helmet.
>
>If you want to wear a helmet or a cap or a Man United T-shirt it is fine
>with me. What I don't like is people telling me what I *must* wear.


I couldn't see that the OP said that - still - don't miss an
opportunity to rant about it will you.

[Peter Clinch]

judith wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:06:35 +0100, Nick >
> wrote:

>> If you want to wear a helmet or a cap or a Man United T-shirt it is fine
>> with me. What I don't like is people telling me what I *must* wear.

> I couldn't see that the OP said that

He didn't. I assumed Nick's comment was an additional commentary, not a
criticism of what Trevor wrote (hence "people telling me" rather than
"you telling me").

> - still - don't miss an opportunity to rant about it will you.

well, errrrr, quite...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Nick[_4_]]

judith wrote:

>> If you want to wear a helmet or a cap or a Man United T-shirt it is fine
>> with me. What I don't like is people telling me what I *must* wear.
>
>
> I couldn't see that the OP said that - still - don't miss an
> opportunity to rant about it will you.

What? Like you start ranting when people point out that smoking cannabis
may be bad for your health?

[Martin[_2_]]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> judith wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:06:35 +0100, Nick >
>> wrote:
>
>>> If you want to wear a helmet or a cap or a Man United T-shirt it is fine
>>> with me. What I don't like is people telling me what I *must* wear.
>
>> I couldn't see that the OP said that
>
> He didn't. I assumed Nick's comment was an additional commentary, not a
> criticism of what Trevor wrote (hence "people telling me" rather than
> "you telling me").

If you look back through the thread, the OP (original poster) did
suggest mandatory cycle helmet laws.


>> - still - don't miss an opportunity to rant about it will you.
>
> well, errrrr, quite...

Yes indeed.

[Nick[_4_]]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> judith wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:06:35 +0100, Nick >
>> wrote:
>
>>> If you want to wear a helmet or a cap or a Man United T-shirt it is fine
>>> with me. What I don't like is people telling me what I *must* wear.
>
>> I couldn't see that the OP said that
>
> He didn't. I assumed Nick's comment was an additional commentary, not a
> criticism of what Trevor wrote (hence "people telling me" rather than
> "you telling me").
>

Yes I didn't mean to get at Trevor. Trevor was clear that he found
advantages to wearing a helmet other than safety. I was only trying to
make my position clear, that I was happy for people to make their own
personal choices, for whatever reasons, but I wasn't happy when they
dictated what others should wear. As Trevor hadn't made any attempt to
say what other people should wear I hadn't thought my post would be
construed as an attack on him. Sorry Trevor.

[Trevor A Panther[_2_]]

"Nick" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> judith wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:06:35 +0100, Nick >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> If you want to wear a helmet or a cap or a Man United T-shirt it is fine
>>>> with me. What I don't like is people telling me what I *must* wear.
>>
>>> I couldn't see that the OP said that
>>
>> He didn't. I assumed Nick's comment was an additional commentary, not a
>> criticism of what Trevor wrote (hence "people telling me" rather than
>> "you telling me").
>>
>
> Yes I didn't mean to get at Trevor. Trevor was clear that he found
> advantages to wearing a helmet other than safety. I was only trying to make
> my position clear, that I was happy for people to make their own personal
> choices, for whatever reasons, but I wasn't happy when they dictated what
> others should wear. As Trevor hadn't made any attempt to say what other
> people should wear I hadn't thought my post would be construed as an attack
> on him. Sorry Trevor.

No need to apologise. I understood your post and took no offence.

To be honest I do my own thing but I do get totally spaced out by the rabid
"pro" and "anti" helmet brigade. I actually should have kept my mouth shut on
the subject anyway.

Helmet posts go on forever and say the same thing all the time and are totally
boring.

I actually thought my little anecdote was a tad different -- but it would have
been better to ignore the topic.

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk